No community start suggestion yet.
What makes kinuyim (substitute words for vows like "konam" instead of "korban") binding — are they foreign mistranslations or rabbinic technical terms? The Ran and Tosafos (תוספות) disagree on whether lashon she'badlu chachamim means the rabbis created synonyms or a functional vow-language, and whether kinuyim work mid'oraisa or only mid'rabanan. This affects why the Mishna starts with kinuyim rather than yadus (hand-gestures).
This shiur analyzes the opening Mishna of Masechta Nedarim (2a) and the fundamental machloket between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding kinuyim — substitute language for vows. The Mishna states that all kinuyei neder have the status of neder itself, and the Gemara (גמרא) presents two views: Rav Yochanan holds kinuyim are lashon nochrim (foreign languages), while Reish Lakish maintains they are lashon she'badlu chachamim (language designated by the sages). Rabbi Zweig presents several fundamental difficulties in the Ran's interpretation. The Ran initially establishes that according to Rav Yochanan, since nedarim can be expressed in any language, kinuyim work as authentic nedarim. For Reish Lakish, even though these are rabbinic designations, they are equally binding mid'oraisa because there is no distinction between languages created by nations and those created by sages — both constitute valid linguistic systems, and therefore halachic consensus is itself a form of language mid'oraisa.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Nedarim 2a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
